What the Jews say about Hungary: the truth

Remove all ads!

As I said, there are objective conditions. It can't happen that a church satisfies them and it's just rejected. In the legislation tradition of parliamentary democracies, there are such formal things. E.g. almost like in the case when the Hungarian President asks the prime minister candidate of the winner party of the election to form a government. The President can't just say no.

And it is correct in this way. The parliament is the highest decision body. You didn't answer my questions:
"Doesn't the US Congress selectively decide which countries to attack in war and which not? Or how do they define in the USA whether you're a potential terrorist who should be arrested immediately?"

Let's see the first one. How come that a country that may be attacked isn't chosen automatically? How come the Congress must vote for the war?

Some things work like that, yes. The Hungarian parliament (and the objective criteria for churches, of course) must represent the interests of the Hungarian state, the Hungarian people. As I said, it is a multilevel system: an organization can function as an institution if it does not get the church status (and can re-apply each year), and even these institutions can get some state aid (money).

 

Really???? Churches don't have political autonomy?

 

Yes, but that was after pressure from both the IMF and the EU. And the changes demanded from the constitutional court was of an absolutely minor nature.

You can not talk of an independent check, when the check de facto acts as a rubber stamp.

Regards

Defreni

 

You don't understand: I care little about you and your hilarious delusions, not Hungary.

 

They have, but they must obey the law of Hungary if they want to operate in Hungary. We have traditions, we don't want to oppress anyone but we don't want our traditions to be oppressed either. Our area (or, what is left from it after 1920) is not a public marketplace.

Come on, do you think that the American laws are made for supporting the freedom of the world?

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 39 seconds later... ----------

You're confusing something here IMF didn't really care about the Hungarian media law... On a side note, the requests of EU were purely technical that time (just the left-liberal preferred to overemphasize them to present some sort of defeat of Orban). On the other hand, the constitutional court recently repealed an important part of the law, just go read about it.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 50 seconds later... ----------

The delusions seem to become true... remember what you said, that the Hungarian media law will end up in the European Court? Yet, noone was talking about it for ages, just now Kroes started to heat it up again to participate in the pressure against Hungary... (the case of a left-wing radio channel who lost a tender with its poor submission was a good pretext... oh yeah, Victor the Monster destroys opposition radios! There were objective conditions: who offers the most money gets the frequency... just like in telecom tenders.)

So, delusions are coming true... After a year, noone will talk about this, and the new Hungary will be very stable. Anyway, you probably love the fact that European's People Party still backs up Orban despite of the international pressure... I tell you a secret: they will keep doing so, and truly nothing bad will happen with Hungary or its government.

 

Nonsense. If a church meets requirements, why then does there need to be a vote, with a 2/3 majority to boot? Irrespective of what you liberally assert about putative intentions of parliament, this law is structurally bad. It is poorly written law. Intentionally so, I reckon.

The point is that when a church meets requirements for church status - then they are a church, and thus must have status. After that, it doesn't make sense that a vote is necessary. That's the nature of rights, and status is a reflection of rights. Rights "are", in rem. When you qualify, you have them. End of story. In particular, they are not granted by parliament as a favour, by majority vote, much less so under a rule conceived because of an asserted fiscal emergency, after all they receive, or that's at least how your 'argument' goes, taxpayer money.

The difference between getting status because one meets criteria and getting status because it is granted is the difference between a free society and an authoritarian one. Hungary was served a solution that goes into the latter direction by their current ruling majority.

And try to understand another thing: As long as Hungary affords itself such crappy laws, the criticism will not go away. Not in a year, not in two years, and not in ten years. That's because it is about principle, not momentary biases. Replace Orbán with another guy enacting similar laws and nothing will change.

 

Then most countries must be authoritarian, according to your interpretation. Many things are granted, e.g. in the USA by the Congress. But about churches, just go check other Eastern/Central European countries, e.g. Czech Republic. Check the number of recognized churches as well, since you brought that up. All these countries are authoritarian then! As a lawyer, have you ever heard of legislative and judicial practice? A practice typical to a country?!

Noone cares about criticism. It's fine. It originates in the opposing interests. If Hungary becomes a more developed country, it will have an even better diplomatic position. Orban is currently the vice-president of the European People's Party, maybe one day he will be president of it On a side note, IF the current Hungarian legislation and media law etc. are considered "bad", then there are/were tons of "worse" examples in Europe. Examples for any case you choose. E.g. in Italy, Berlusconi made the state control one part of the media, while the remaining part was controlled by Berlusconi himself EU didn't have a true problem (legal threat) with it... Because Italy is a strong country. Hungary will be a stronger country too, one day. Not that Berlusconi is some positive example. But if he could do that, Hungary can do smoother things. E.g. we didn't need the cr*p media, the reality shows, the swearing-cursing texts in the front pages of news sites... Now it's much nicer, e.g. the main liberal news portal, Index.hu uses the circle with 18 in he middle for rude/sexual articles. Much better. The true effect of Orban's laws are silent. While the loud Europe is fed with some technical changes. Some legal changes, because actually, the legal problems with Hungarian laws are just technical. No matter what Ragusa says, they are. Otherwise, how come the media law is still in effect and the EU could do nothing with it.

 

But oddly, they don't put church status up for vote, suggesting your attempt at deflection by false analogy is, probably deliberately so, misleading.

The point is not that they, too, grant some things, but what they grant and what not, and for what reason. The latter part is particular instructive. You really should concern yourself with such trifles. You'd come across as less a blustering zealot that way. As a novelty, people may get the impression you're actually talking with them.

You also boldly assert that:

Nonsense. What you dismiss as mere technicalities and mere procedural aspects is the soul of law. Procedure is absolutely fundamental in law. Rights are completely meaningless without proper procedure (i.e. means for the rights holders) to enforce (i.e. defend) them.

The right to property in the context of Hungary's change in jurisdiction of the constitutional court is a perfect example. The Hungarian constitution in Article 13 Section 1 does grant a right to private property. Tax laws are inherently suited to infringe upon the right to property. The confiscatory 98% tax on severance pay for former administration officials nicely illustrates that. The constitutional court can, for the time being (i.e. until a defined state of the budget is achieved, which may take decades), no longer check on the constitutionality of tax laws and fiscal bills. If another confiscatory bill was enacted, and some people's property would be confiscated or taxed away, there now is no recourse. Which means that in Hungary, for all practical purposes, the right to property is meaningless when it comes to taxes. The right can be trampled, and there is no way for people to defend themselves. Procedure, granting trifles like access to courts (i.e. giving courts jurisdiction) in case where rights have been infringed upon, is key. These 'mere technicalities' are precisely what makes the difference between a free country under the rule of law and an authoritarian one.

In this situation, the parliament could theoretically, certainly with the proper 2/3 majority, enact a 98% tax on possessions of, for the sake of argument, ginger kids. This would of course be blatantly unconstitutional, but there would be no access to recourse, since the constitutional court has been deprived of jurisdiction in such matters. And all you have to say about that - repeatedly and at nauseating length - is that, since Fidesz is awesome and because dear leader is wise and just, this won't happen. I find that, to be unreasonably charitable, quite unconvincing.

That simple fact it can happen, and that there is no access to recourse if it happens, makes it seriously bad law.
The sobering fact that it was probably enacted deliberately makes me seriously question the intentions of the legislators.

 

First, you can keep this educating tone for yourself, Mr. Lawyer. Fortunately, world is not led by lawyers -- it would be boring and would lack all and any passion (though I know some lawyers who are exceptions ). Nonetheless, back to the point, you actually made a useless statement here:

What they grant, what not -- different for each country, each culture. Legislative practice, legislative traditions etc. But I know it's hopeless to argue with you -- you take everything from a legal point of view. That is why you'll never truly understand most people. People. Do. Not. Think. In. Laws. They think in *practice*, *interests*, *feelings* So no matter how you try to put everything to a central schema that you believe to be 'correct', the world will stay diverse, and Hungary will return to St. Stephen's principles. (And Orbán will be the king. OK, this was the kidding part )

OK, so constitutions are perfect by definition? Who is allowed to change the constitution then? Who decides then what to keep and what to remove? Or constitution is untouchable? If it's not, what makes you more competent than others to decide what shouldn't have been changed in it...?

 

B,
do you even realize just how breathtakingly cavalier and stupid that response of yours is?

 

By the way, for those who worry so much about the independence of Hungarian judicial system, a little cake from Slovakia, where the president simply doesn't want to appoint the legally elected head prosecutor, saying "I don't trust him". The article below:
http://www.thedaily.sk/2011/11/07/political-affairs/centes-takes-president-to-constitutional-court/

The president is the lackey of Fico, the person who has a populist party and will win the next election in Slovakia. One could say this thread is about Hungary, but:
(1) Just partially: almost everything was discussed here, even USA...
(2) Slovakia is a neighbour of Hungary
(3) This fits to my point that the EU is applying disgusting double standards...

But I tell you 'better' (i.e. much more terrible): it seems that the whole political elite of Slovakia was playing together with the Slovak national secret service. These are called the "gorila files":
http://www.social-europe.eu/2012/01/gorilla-corruption-scandal-hits-slovak-politics/

Yep, political parties with total and direct relationship with the secret service... enormous scandal in Slovakia. Watergate is jack compared to this.

Yes, dear Western readers, those are the antidemocratic, authoritarian, ugly regimes. Not Hungary. But Slovakia serves the international financial groups and banks, so noone has a reason to free Barrosso and his lackey dogs to attack Slovakia. A silent little dictature.

Quoting the article:

Well, compare Hungary with this. Welcome to Eastern Europe, guys!

 

B,
you can always find a place slightly or a lot crappier than yours. You're content with that? It doesn't make yours exactly good. In particular, your line of 'reasoning' doesn't invalidate the criticisms levelled at the constitution, Orbán's laws and the like.

I am rather certain that Hungary compares favourably to Belarus and probably Slovakia, not to mention Cuba, Oman, Morocco, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Iraq or North Korea. Feel better already?

 

I merely pointed out the double standards, regardless if EU's criticism is valid or not in the various cases. Slovakia is a member of the EU, with AA status for investments, etc. Yet, human rights and political abuse is much more terrible there than in Hungary. In fact, thanks to Orbán, some things got much better in Hungary.

 

Let me guess: Orbán made the trains run on time?

 

Ironically, what you say is a very important factor, and very important to many people's lives. Considering that the previous corrupt government leased our good train carriages to a Dutch company with an inadvantageous contract and the company went bankrupt so the Dutch state took all the wagons, yes, there were improvements in this sense too.

Nonetheless, trains are very important to many people who go to work or school every day. You should get down from your high horse and stop educating half the world from your Germany office*. You know, office isn't real life. Law isn't practice.

*Edit: ok you don't have an own office yet, probably still working as a lawyer assistant, though I'm not 100% sure, but I guess so based on certain indicators.

 

You're beyond irony.

 

I like these duels with you. Especially because I take them for fun, you take them seriously.

(Of course, my general points, addressed to all interested readers, are not jokes.)

 

Ah yes.

To clarify: I take the subject matter seriously. I do not extend that to you. There just is no justification for that.

This is getting tiresome.

 

Ragusa's law (which is not constitutional): starting with *yaaawn*, ending in *yaaawn". Am I correct?

 

I am not really going out on a limb here by assuming that you never considered that the inevitable tiring effect may have something to do with your incredible posting style, your monumental imperviousness to about anything, and your startling habit of not addressing in a logical or coherent way arguments made against your assertions. It's just ... *sleight of hand* ... not true!

I found it hard to believe at first, but apparently you're the closest living thing next to a random generating spam bot.